(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.10 2019나68451

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.10 2019나68451

분양대금반환 청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception that the plaintiffs added the "2. Additional Judgment" as to the allegations emphasized by the court of first instance. However, the "21,46,140" of the second 17th judgment shall be "21,446,140 won", "65,183,640 won" of the third 14th judgment shall be "65,182,640 won", "21,357,760 won" of the first 15th sentence shall be "20,357,760 won", "21,760 won" of the first 4th 15th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 10 "sale contract", "the 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10 "the receipt", respectively, and shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. (1) As to the claim for return of unjust enrichment premised on the cancellation of the supply contract, the Plaintiffs’ assertion cannot be deemed as having made a significant change in terms of the content of the supply contract concluded with Defendant C on October 27, 2016 and the content of the supply contract concluded with Defendant D on March 16, 2018.

In addition, even according to Section 16 (1) of the sales contract with the plaintiffs and the defendant D, the defendant C continues to play a substantial role as a project undertaker.

Nevertheless, it is invalid in accordance with Article 6 (2) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act that the Plaintiffs lose the validity of an existing supply contract concluded with Defendant D when entering into a new supply contract with the Plaintiffs and Defendant C, with the content that the terms and conditions unreasonably unfavorable to the customers or restrict essential rights of the contract.

(2) We examine the judgment, and Defendant D’s name, which was entrusted by Defendant C with the implementation of the business and changed to Defendant D, has lost the validity of the supply contract concluded between Defendant C and the buyer on March 16, 2018, while entering into a supply contract again with the buyer on March 16, 2018. Thus, considering the aforementioned circumstances asserted by the Plaintiffs in the trial, the above content may be unfairly unfavorable to the Plaintiffs or may achieve the purpose of the contract.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-약관의 규제에 관한 법률 제6조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.04 2014가합556393

-인천지방법원 2018.05.15 2017가합60894

-수원지방법원 2016.07.14 2015가단118119

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.12.19 2018가단110624

-서울남부지방법원 2017.07.25 2017가단213894